Re: efficient cloning

Dear diary, on Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:04:34AM CET, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] said that...

I think what is reasonable is something like this:

<insert all of the arguments in my other mail here ;>

 - If your repository was cloned with --use-separate-remote, the
   upstream "master" is refs/remotes/master, so the same diff
   can be had with "diff remotes/master master".

Which is ugly. There is no reason why you couldn't go on using 'origin'
which is shorter and we can usually still unambiguously decide what did
you mean (unless you have a local head/tag 'origin' _and_ a remote named
'origin' at the same time).

 - Regardless of how you started your cloned repository, with an
   $GIT_DIR/{remotes,refs/heads,refs/remotes} editor I hinted in
   a separate message, you can rearrange things to organize the
   refs/ hierarchy any way you want.

Yes, but that makes no sense to do when you usually need this only in
some very special cases (and then you ought to be able to set up the
weird thing yourself), while we can do the doubtlessly right thing in
the general case, WITHOUT confusing the user, WHILE keeping things tidy
and easy to use (and without excessive typing). In fact, you described
it yourself:

   - You could for example arrange to track all my branches in
     refs/remotes/junkio/, and if git-pasky were still alive,
     Pasky's branches in refs/remotes/pasky.  If we had a "take
     the unique tail-name anywhere under refs/" logic, the same
     diff can be had with "diff junkio/master master".

Except that you can just name the refs/remotes/directory the same way
you name the remote repository identifier (be it a Git-style remote or
Cogito's remote branch).

I still don't get what's wrong on what I'm proposing. I'm not seeing the
disadvantages, if there are any.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time.  I think
I have forgotten this before.